Re: PICS is not censorship

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 9:36 AM +0000 12/10/96, jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk wrote:
>Tim May <tcmay@mail.got.net> writes:
>> At 3:52 PM -0800 12/8/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>> >Let's put the question if something like PICS will be mandated aside for
>> >the moment. Do you agree that sites that deliberately mislabel their
>> >content, will eventually face legal action? If so, then PICS should not be
>> >considered truly voluntary.
>
>I disagree, mandating labeling is a completely separate thing from
>deliberately
>mislabeling. No one could force me into entering into a contract with them,
>but if I chose to then it would, and very probably should, be enforceable.

If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less
worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not
last.

(And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people
who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS
agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a
system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as
non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the
Dervishes subsidize their systems.)


>> If I believe pictures of people having sex should be marked "Suitable for
>> all ages" (or whatever the Official PICS Status Code is) will I be
>> criminally or civilly in danger? If so, then PICS is a ratings system which
>> individuals are likely to be unable to interpret themselves.
>
>What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
>content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
>if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.

Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.

Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience,"
or "Children need to look at this!"?

There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have
their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free
speech as we know it.

(For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.)


>> (This takes the element of intent to deliberately defeat PICS out of the
>> equation, and asks if "innocent mislabeling" or "philosophical disagreement
>> alternate labeling" will expose the mislabeller to charges.
>
>Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent
>mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but
>if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer
>but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a
>page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud?

Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist
"factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an
incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech.

If I wish to describe two people having sex as "Two happy persons engaged
in a happy pursuit," this is not "fraud." True, many parents will dislike
it, as will many Mennonites, etc. So?

>Take for example a page labeled with the <Topless> factual tag, that charged
>for access. Surely a user could, at the very least claim that false
>advertising got him to (pay to) view the page if he was searching for Topless
>pictures?

Not even close. On Highway One, near Monterey, California, is a large sign
saying "Topless." Turns out to be for artichokes. There may be "implied
contracts" for nightclubs with "topless" signs, but in other contexts
"topless" may mean various things.


>> What I see with any such enforcement of PICS standards is yet another Full
>> Employment Act for Lawyers, and the Lawyer's Guild will be oh so happy to
>> see PICS essentially made part of the bureacratic morass:
>>
>> "Due to the complexities of the PICS ratings system, and varying community
>> interpretations of the elements of PICS, we advise that no person post
>> anything to the Net with a PICS rating without seeking competent legal
>> advice from a PICS-licensed legal professional."
>
>Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go
>the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling
>their pages they just will not label them at all.

Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a
market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label
anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label
clearly, and so on.

Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS
or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that
many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection
with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some
of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet
the demands of the censors.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."